Government and DNA Databases

[Cedars]

Reading this article:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12743184/

 

I have concerns about the expansion of DNA sciences into the law enforcement arena and other government entities. DNA is a wonderful tool, but it only works correctly if the tests administered are not contaminated and performed by personal and labs which adhere to some very strict guidelines. And as I understand DNA and its reliability, what DNA works exceptionally for, especially with law enforcement use, is when the test declares there is no match between two samples. Once DNA says a match has occurred is where the facts become fuzzier. Additionally, there have been multiple cases of bad lab work, and all out fraud by the persons performing the tests which have resulted in innocent persons being convicted and later released and have lead to all of the persons convicted under these careless or even (what I consider ) criminal actions by law enforcement having their convictions reversed.

 

See this link for more info:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/28/tech/main551315.shtml

 

and the worst case I have ever seen so far:

 

http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/special/03/crimelab/

 

The increase in the use of this tool alarms me. Using this tool to investigate family members because it is a close match seems to be another violation of the absolutes DNA testing provides. You become a suspect because your dads DNA is close? Or your Uncles DNA was close? Another issue I have with this is I have no idea whether DNA databases will be updated when better technology and improved sciences make older tests suspect. The use of this in misdemeanor crimes when there is such a backlog of horrific crime samples that need testing seems to indicate the governments priorities have been mixed up greatly when deciding how to spend our tax money in law enforcement.

 

Another tidbit from a different article:

 

“Procedure is not infallible

DNA testing is not an infallible proof of identity. In a database of 2.5 million people, a one-in-a-billion probability becomes a one-in-400 chance of at least one match.”

 

As I understood the above, the increase in match probability is due to limited markers used to determine a match (as few as 5).

 

Then there is the future of potential release of existing data to entities other than law enforcement, such as insurance companies. I know there was a huge outcry in Minnesota a few years ago when a local news station did an in-depth report on how the state had been selling peoples names and addresses to marketing entities. The laws were changed reluctantly due to the pressure put on lawmakers. Why reluctantly? Because the state of MN received money for those addresses. And worse things have happened here.

 

A few years back a database of aids/hiv positive persons escaped from the governments ‘secure’ database and ended up circulating around. A news entity received a copy of it and brought it to the attention of the public. The state did not know this information had been compromised (or wont admit they knew) until that point; which put an end to the request of the state Health Dept. to begin a database of genetic markers for all of the people of MN. They were pushing to make it a law that every person who visited a doctor would have a sample taken without their consent for inclusion in this database. The stated goal was to look for genetic markers on health conditions for planning for future health needs in this state.

 

I do not know that there exists any safeguards for those who are charged with a crime and later released. I do know that every time you are arrested (charged or not), this information is retained in this states database. And prosecuting attorneys have been known to bring up an unwarranted arrest in different cases to try to show a person has a criminal past, (by unwarranted, I mean someone who was picked up on suspicion of a crime yet later that week/month/etc., the real perpetrator was charged and later convicted). I am sure a prosecutor will ignore the above 1 in 400 chance of a match and stick with the one in a million as he is making the case to the jury.

 

And another source to be aware of:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3077152

 

I do not think government is responsible enough to use this tool in a fashion that will not do harm to individual liberties.